[2015] KEELC 232 (KLR)

[2015] KEELC 232 (KLR)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success because the surveyor's report established that the respondent was occupying his own land, Plot No. 653, and not the applicants' Plot No. 652. The applicants were found to be laying claim to the wrong plot, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] KEELC 232 (KLR)
Parties
Plaintiff: Zephania Saul Khisa; Plaintiff: Risper Nafula; Defendant: Evans Mushikani
Court
Environment and Land Court
Court Station
Environment and Land Court at Kitale
Jurisdiction
Kenya
Judgment Date
21 September 2015
Case Number
Land Case 9 of 2015
Procedural Posture
Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction
Outcome
application dismissed with costs to the respondent
Judges
EO Obaga
Legal Topics
Injunctive Relief, Ownership Dispute, Land Demarcation
Source Language
english
Land and Property Injunctive Relief Ownership Dispute Land Demarcation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zephania Saul Khisa

Plaintiff

Risper Nafula

Plaintiff

Evans Mushikani

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Injunction Application / Ruling on Interlocutory Injunction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established a prima facie case with a probability of success for grant of an injunction.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent has interfered with the applicants' land (Plot No. 652 at Zea Settlement Scheme).
  3. 3 Whether the balance of convenience and irreparable harm justify the grant of an injunction.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate a prima facie case with a probability of success because the surveyor's report established that the respondent was occupying his own land, Plot No. 653, and not the applicants' Plot No. 652. The applicants were found to be laying claim to the wrong plot, and the respondent could not be injuncted from using his own property. The court also noted that the applicants had filed another suit regarding Plot No. 653, indicating uncertainty about the land they actually own. Consequently, the application for injunction was dismissed as misconceived.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs to the respondent

Orders

  • The applicants' application for injunction is dismissed with costs to the respondent.